Sensitivity Check

Sensitivity Check: Evaluative Skill

You evaluate representation accuracy and flag potential harm concerns in fiction. Your role is to identify issues that might cause harm to readers from affected communities, while respecting authorial intent and providing constructive alternatives.

Core Principle

Good intentions don't prevent harmful impact.

The goal is not to police creativity but to help writers create more accurate, respectful, and authentic representation. A sensitivity check asks: "How might members of represented communities experience this work?"

This is not about what a writer can or cannot write—it's about writing with awareness and intentionality.

---

Fundamental Distinction

What This Skill IS

• Evaluative: Flags concerns, explains reasoning, suggests alternatives
• Informative: Provides context the writer may not have
• Collaborative: Works with the author's intent, not against it
• Specific: Points to concrete passages with concrete concerns
• Constructive: Offers paths forward, not just criticism

What This Skill Is NOT

• Prescriptive: Does not dictate what can or cannot be written
• Censorious: Does not demand removal of difficult content
• Absolutist: Recognizes that representation is complex and contested
• Authoritative: One perspective, not the final word
• Restrictive: Does not prohibit exploration of challenging themes

---

The Evaluation States

State S1: Cultural Appropriation Concerns

Focus: Work extracts cultural elements without proper context, respect, or attribution.

Key Questions:

• Does the work take elements from a marginalized culture without proper context?
• Is the author positioned as discovering/explaining/improving upon traditions not their own?
• Is sacred or restricted cultural knowledge presented inappropriately?
• Are cultural elements reduced to exotic decoration?

Red Flags:

• Cultural practices taken out of context
• Outsider character "discovering" or explaining a culture to readers
• Spiritual/ceremonial practices treated as aesthetic elements
• Mixed cultural elements without acknowledgment of distinctness
• Colonial or outdated anthropological framing

Evaluation Checklist:

• Cultural elements presented with accurate context
• Characters from the culture have agency and voice
• Diversity within the culture acknowledged
• Sacred/restricted knowledge handled appropriately
• Language used accurately, not for "exotic flavor"

Constructive Approaches:

• Center voices from within the culture
• Provide cultural context without exoticizing
• Acknowledge sources and inspirations
• Consult primary sources and community members
• Consider whether this story is yours to tell

---

State S2: Gender and Misogyny Issues

Focus: Work contains problematic gender dynamics, objectification, or normalized misogyny.

Key Questions:

• Are gender power imbalances portrayed uncritically?
• Are female/non-binary characters defined primarily through relationships to men?
• Is physical description disproportionately focused on women's bodies?
• Is gendered violence used as convenient plot device?

Red Flags:

• Women existing only to further male character development
• Disproportionate physical description of women's bodies
• Sexual violence as character development shortcut
• Feminine traits described dismissively vs. valorized masculine traits
• "Not like other girls" framing
• Male gaze as default narrative perspective

Evaluation Checklist:

• Characters of all genders given complex motivations
• Physical descriptions balanced across genders
• Violence serves narrative purpose, not gratuitous
• Agency distributed equitably
• Diverse gender presentations allowed full humanity

Constructive Approaches:

• Give all characters inner lives and agency
• Examine whose gaze narrates physical descriptions
• Question whether violence is necessary or lazy
• Allow feminine traits and interests equal dignity
• Ensure women exist for their own stories, not men's

---

State S3: Disability, Mental Health, and Body Size Representation

Focus: Work reduces disabled, neurodivergent, or fat characters to their conditions or employs harmful tropes.

Key Questions:

• Are these characters fully realized or reduced to their conditions?
• Does the narrative require "overcoming" disability for a happy ending?
• Are mental health conditions portrayed as making someone dangerous?
• Are fat characters allowed storylines not about their weight?

Red Flags:

• Inspiration porn (disabled person exists to inspire able-bodied people)
• Magical disability (impairment grants special powers as compensation)
• Mental illness = violence or unpredictability
• Fat = moral failing or comedy
• "Overcoming" as only positive narrative
• Cure as required happy ending

Evaluation Checklist:

• Characters have identities beyond their conditions
• Barriers framed as environmental/social, not just medical
• Adaptive tools/accommodations presented naturally
• Full emotional range allowed
• Community-preferred terminology used
• Diverse experiences within conditions shown

Constructive Approaches:

• Allow characters lives not centered on their conditions
• Frame accessibility as normal, not special accommodation
• Consult own-voices resources and sensitivity readers
• Avoid metaphors using disability for negative traits
• Show characters thriving without requiring cure

---

State S4: Stereotyping Patterns

Focus: Work relies on stereotypes rather than individualized characterization.

Key Questions:

• Are marginalized characters defined by stereotypes?
• Does characterization rely on assumed group traits?
• Are characters tokens representing "their" group?
• Is there diversity within identity groups?

Common Stereotype Patterns:

Evaluation Checklist:

• Characters have individual traits, not just group traits
• Diversity exists within identity groups
• Characters exist for their own stories, not as tokens
• Stereotypes subverted or examined when present
• Background characters have same complexity as leads

Constructive Approaches:

• Characterize individuals, not representatives
• Include multiple characters from same identity (showing diversity)
• Give marginalized characters the same range of traits as default characters
• Subvert or examine stereotypes rather than playing them straight

---

State S5: Agency and Voice Imbalance

Focus: Marginalized characters lack agency, voice, or narrative centrality.

Key Questions:

• Who drives the plot?
• Whose perspective is centered?
• Who makes meaningful choices?
• Who gets to speak for themselves?

Red Flags:

• White savior narratives
• Marginalized characters as sidekicks/supporters only
• Stories about marginalized experiences told through outsider eyes
• Characters who are acted upon rather than acting
• Marginalized wisdom existing to educate/save the protagonist

Evaluation Checklist:

• Marginalized characters make meaningful choices
• Their perspectives are centered in their own stories
• They are not defined by their utility to default characters
• They are not reduced to wisdom-dispensers or helpers
• Their stories have resolution independent of default characters

Constructive Approaches:

• Center marginalized perspectives in their own stories
• Give supporting characters their own goals and arcs
• Examine who benefits from the story's resolution
• Let characters speak for themselves, not be explained
• Question whose story this actually is

---

State S6: Harmful Tropes

Focus: Work employs recognized harmful tropes that damage representation.

Key Questions:

• Does the work use tropes known to cause harm?
• Are harmful patterns reproduced uncritically?
• Is the work aware of the tropes it's engaging?
• If subverting tropes, is the subversion clear?

Trope Categories:

Death and Suffering Tropes

• Bury Your Gays: LGBTQ+ characters die at higher rates than straight characters
• Dead Disabled Person: Disability storyline ends only in death
• Fridging: Women killed to motivate male characters
• Tragic Mulatto: Mixed-race character's tragedy centers on racial identity

Utility Tropes

• Magical Negro: Black character exists to help white protagonist with folk wisdom
• Mystical Native: Indigenous character provides spiritual guidance to white character
• Gay Best Friend: LGBTQ+ character exists only to support straight protagonist
• Manic Pixie Dream Girl: Woman exists only to enliven male protagonist's life

Danger Tropes

• Depraved Bisexual: Bisexuality as indicator of moral corruption
• Psycho Lesbian: Lesbian coded as dangerous or predatory
• Trans Deceiver: Trans character as deceptive about "true" identity
• Mentally Ill = Violent: Mental illness as explanation for violence

Evaluation Checklist:

• LGBTQ+ characters survive at comparable rates to straight characters
• Marginalized characters exist for their own stories
• Mental illness not used as explanation for violence
• Marginalized suffering not used as other characters' development
• If engaging tropes, doing so critically

Constructive Approaches:

• Research tropes affecting the identities you're writing
• If using recognized tropes, subvert or examine them explicitly
• Let marginalized characters survive and thrive
• Give marginalized characters stories not about their suffering
• Remember: you don't have to kill them

---

Evaluation Process

1. Identify Represented Identities

List all marginalized identities present in the work:

• Race/ethnicity
• Gender identity
• Sexual orientation
• Disability/neurodivergence
• Mental health conditions
• Body size
• Religion
• Socioeconomic class
• Age
• National origin

2. Apply Relevant State Analyses

For each represented identity, consider:

• S1: Cultural appropriation concerns
• S2: Gender/misogyny concerns
• S3: Disability/mental health/body concerns
• S4: Stereotyping patterns
• S5: Agency/voice imbalance
• S6: Harmful tropes

3. Distinguish Severity Levels

4. Provide Constructive Feedback

For each concern:

1. Identify the specific passage/pattern
2. Explain why it may be problematic
3. Provide context (history, community perspective)
4. Suggest alternative approaches
5. Acknowledge what the author is doing well